what justification is there to tax the rich more?

[zidane1strife]

Work ultimately drives economic potential, thats why capitalism is the only realistic system, and why extreme progressive tax systems is both unfair and ultimately self defeating.

Well I certainly don't mean EXTREME, but I think slightly more taxes(particularly for inheritance.) would be good.

The gov. used to deal with mon., with intellectual prop., etc in other ways... Corruption is affecting the system, and now that info.spreads like wild(web), brands and IP of char.s, books, etc... are becoming all the more important...

....Brand ??? will have more trouble succeding then Brand X...

 

[Sabastian]

I dont agree, I think its the people at the middle and top brackets that do the line share of the work. The scientists, farmers, doctors, lawyers, judges, police, inventors blah blah blah.

The argument against too much progressive tax is essentially the essence of capitalism 'when does taxation detriment the drive to work more'.

I am inventor A, and I want to make an invention. Do to so, would place me in a higher tax bracket. In the patholigical case I realize that working the huge extra hours necessary to make my invention is only going to net me a small pittance of returns. I am greedy person, why should I work more since im more or less perfectly comfortable.

Now look at welfare states across Europe. You have many people like that who are perfectly content to not work at all. Thats a case where the progressive tax is set so low, coupled with the safety net, that all incentive is cut out an extremely low level. Hence the huge unemployment, immigration problems, deficit levels etc etc.

Work ultimately drives economic potential, thats why capitalism is the only realistic system, and why extreme progressive tax systems is both unfair and ultimately self defeating.

Freds got it. I refer to the capitalist type system as a bonus system(Individualist) and the egalitarian welfare state (collectivist) the handicapped system. In the bonus system there is more incentive to do more. In the handicapped system there is less incentive. It really couldn't be more simple.

EDIT: I added the philosophical references to individualism and collectivism, just for fun.

 

[Sabastian]

Well I certainly don't mean EXTREME, but I think slightly more taxes(particularly for inheritance.) would be good.

If someone works all their life and amasses a fair amount of wealth the state ought not to have a hand in how it is disbursed. They should be able to pass it along to their children. The state has no right to my father or mothers wealth (not that they have any.) or for that matter what I might pass on to my family.

The gov. used to deal with mon., with intellectual prop., etc in other ways... Corruption is affecting the system, and now that info.spreads like wild(web), brands and IP of char.s, books, etc... are becoming all the more important...

....Brand ??? will have more trouble succeding then Brand X...

What ??? My sakes man you should try to be a little more articulate.

 

[MfA]

Just saying it doesnt make it so

If you believe in personal rights uber alles then sure ... but the collectivist does not recognise that and can justify it from the viewpoint of a social contract (which the individualists in turn dont recognise).

The reality of the situation is that all property is state owned, ie. reality is collectivist rather than individualist, and thereby communal in a democracy. You have no real property, whatever that bill of yours says your rights are merely privileges ... constitutions can be rewritten. If it makes you feel better pretend the state owns all the land and you have signed a contract allowing you to live there which sacrificed your rights ... pure laissez faire capitalism is not incompatible with that situation after all.

 

[Dave H]

I'm going to ignore the silly pro/anti capitalism debate this thread has devolved into and steer it back to the fundamental flaw with the premise:

The American tax system, as a whole is NOT particularly progressive. One particular portion of it--the federal income tax--is progressive. But most of the rest of it ends up being regressive in effect, with the overall result that the average total tax burden as a fraction of total yearly income is very nearly flat (it is slightly higher on the poor and the rich, with the middle class, as one would expect, getting the best deal).

How on earth can this possibly be? For one thing, the poorer you are, the larger the fraction of your income that goes toward immediate consumption; thus the poor pay a whole lot more sales tax as a fraction of their income than the rich.

Moreover, the poor are more likely than the rich to consume items subject to special "sin" excise taxes (primarily cigarettes, but also liquor etc.). The poor pay a hugely higher proportion of their total income in sin taxes than do the rich.

Then there's Social Security withholdings, which are a flat tax up to a certain level of income, beyond which no more is withheld for Social Security. This winds up being a hugely regressive tax in favor of those with very high incomes. Moreover, those who pay higher SS taxes are scheduled to get more back in return, although not quite to the degree that they put more in. Still, this makes Social Security a regressive tax even for that part of the income scale where it is ostensibly flat.

(Of course there would be those that consider Social Security a private retirement fund that just happens to be run by the government--thus, those who contribute more would be entitled to more in return, as in some way they're just "getting their money back". Unfortunately, this view is sharply divorced from reality, where the Social Security Trust Fund is de facto not at all kept seperate from the overall federal budget, and where the money we put in today is not saved to pay for our own retirements but rather immediately paid out (almost all of it) to old folks in the here and now.)

Of course all of this is acting as if one's only source of income is one's job. This is, of course, generally true for the poor, but not for the middle-class--much of whose wealth is tied in to their (tax-exempt) home mortgage--and certainly not for the rich, whose wealth exists primarily in the form of various investments, income on most of which is taxed at the rather low capital gains rate (now including dividends).

Moreover, it ignores the numerous opportunities for deductions in the tax system, most of which target the middle class and the rich rather than the poor. I've already mentioned the mortgage deduction. Then there's the deduction on charitable donations; the deduction on college tuition, and many other deductions which are generally more applicable to the wealthy.

Of course many of those deductions go towards encouraging socially desirable things (home ownership, charitable donations, etc.). Capital gains on investments are taxed at a lower rate because investment is the primary driver of a capitalist economy, and thus ought to be encouraged in the tax code. And so on.

Moreover, the statement that overall tax rates as a fraction of income are essentially flat, while technically true, is true only technically. Here's the data, from the NYT (unfortunately, the article to which this chart was attached is long since gone into the pay archives):

The problem is that wealthy retirees--low income, high taxes as they sell off their investments--are included with the poor on that chart. If you chart things longitudinally, the rich do indeed pay more in taxes over the course of their lifetimes than do the poor. But there is still a lot of mitigating factors that make the gap much much much lower than one would assume just from looking at income tax alone.

As for supposedly more-progressive Europe, I haven't seen the figures, but considering the ridiculagnormous VATs levelled on everything over there, I would be shocked if the overall tax system in most EU countries weren't rather regressive. The difference is not that they tax the rich more; it's that they tax everyone more (and that, in most of Europe, everyone makes less than Americans to begin with).

 

[DemoCoder]

The reality of the situation is that all property is state owned, ie. reality is collectivist rather than individualist.

No, reality is force. He who has force, owns property. If you want to look at it from the perspective of the jungle, the state does not own my land, and neither does the community, unless they can overpower me.

Today, given the huge assymmetry of state power vs the individual, it's true that a mob or the government could take it. However, historically, wealthy land owners were more than able to defend their land from those who wanted to sieze it.


I prefer to enshrine property and personality liberty as special rights beyond vote of the masses. Or atleast, make it incredibly hard for the constitution to be altered such that for all intents and purposes, property cannot be siezed arbitrarily.

 

[pax]

More important to the debate as to whether the tax system is a bell curve or progressive or somewhat flat is the fact that most of the giht wing here think gov is too big. However we rarely get by the numbers of how much gov could be shrinked more than it already has in the US without severe social dislocation due to the fact that historically disparities in income have never been greater. Even Imperial Rome went from 3-1 disprity to a max of about 10-12 to one according to some studies.

Today we are in the hundreds to one and even though we can afford it to some extent within our own societies due to modern production there is always a limit as to what can be tolerated or tested. I think we are about at that limit right now tho far in excess of it internationaly.

Can you guys (joe, demo ect...) enlighten us as to what could be cut from gov to any significant degree and we could still have a stable nation in the US? Without the need for a police state that is...?

 

[zidane1strife]

If someone works all their life and amasses a fair amount of wealth the state ought not to have a hand in how it is disbursed. They should be able to pass it along to their children. The state has no right to my father or mothers wealth (not that they have any.) or for that matter what I might pass on to my family.

What if your mother own's half of a particular market and your father own's the other half... you now own it all... that can't possibly be legal can it?

How about if I owned half the land in a state... the gov. and the people might have probs. depending on my mood...

Well, thankfully one of the wealthiest men has actually given tons to charity, and will give even more after he dies.

As has been said here, even those with resources, connections, cleverness, can fall quite easy... those without resources, or the like, have to endure the market all the way to the top, and then fight their way against all other previous institutions on their way there.

True it is I certainly don't like taxes, but I have to pay them for the benefit of society. If I was even wealthier I think I should expect to give even more... but then that's just me....

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

zidane1strife,

You have some very different beliefs than I do, and I find them quite fascinating. While I understand the things you say, I don't understand the reasons why you feel the way you do. I would love to hear from you regarding my questions.

Those at the top of the pyramid already enjoy the prestige, and financial independence that the rest of the 'slaves' give them.

those at the bottom, the working 'brain washed' consumer force are the ones maintaining the system.

Ok, right off the bat it looks like you feel that those that are not wealthy are slaves and/or are brainwashed. First I am not rich by any means. I do not see why you think that I am either a slave or a brainwashed consumer. Please explain...

Luck/Circumstances/etc(genes/intelligence/family/corporate success/ being there at the right time and the right moment, etc), has placed them above the rest of the pop.

Ok, I will agree that those can have a factor in getting rich. On a percentage all of the rich, how many do you think got their because they work very hard?

Luck/Circumstances/etc, has placed them above the rest of the pop. who are in effect sustaining the system not with status or money, but with sweat

Do you feel the rich give back to society? Do you feel that the only way you can give back to society is with physical labor?

Quote:
Specifically, why does the government have a right to more upper classes money than middle classes?


Because like it or not, they are the ones at the top, when you're at the top you shouldn't complain.

I really don't understand this. Why should the rich just give over more of a share of their money to the government? I asked that question, and you just said, "Shut up, and stop complaining". Why do you say this?

If I own dozens of corporations and have billions in the bank, something HAS TO BE DONE. Or else my descendants("and I during my lifetime"), will accumulate ever more wealth at the expense of the lower classes.

Ahh, maybe I do understand why you don't think the rich should complain. You feel that the rich step on the lower classes. Why do you feel this way? I would love to hear why you feel rich people take advantage of the poorer people. Has a rich person taken advantage of you personally? I am just trying to get a better understanding...

At the cost of my fellow humans' well being, every time I get richer they'll get poorer.

Ok, why do you think that when someone gets rich, that someone gets poorer? If you neighbor gets raise, are you happy for him, or does it someone hurt you?

If you lacked the intelligence, common sense, education, youth, etc... and you were working at a local wal-mart, or as a janitor... you're A.)contributing to the system, B.) You can't get out of your predicament unless you're really lucky...

Do you think that most people that work at Wal-Mart have no intelligence, no common sense, and no education? You Sir are selling those people so short! I worked with many people at Meijers. Some of my fellow managers felt as you did. I didn't. I hired people off of the street and taught them about the chemistry of silver halide color photography. would not except my people saying, "I don't understand that". They worked on $100,000 machines, and became known as the photo lab to call when you had a chemical problem. These are people right off the street with no degrees! They understood how the photons would activate the silver halides to react with the color developer. Sir, not many people lack enough intelligence or common sense to hold them back. People don't succeed because they chose not to live up to their full potential and because they listen to people like you tell them they can't do it. (/grrrr sorry pet peeve when people sell other people short)

if lots of your fellow men got their education and PhD’s... you'd be screwed... luckily they can't.

Zidane1strife, what do you mean can't??! If you wanted PHD do you think you could get one? If you said yes, SWEET right answer. If you said no, then you just sold yourself short. You have no one to blame but yourself. I mean, what the heck?!?! Of COURSE you can get a PHD if you had the drive and determination to get one! It might not be easy for you, it might be down right hard because of some of the choices you have made in your life, but you CAN do it! That I know. =)

Look, those at the bottom are not there willingly(at least most of them.), some of em might try to start their own business(and see it go BR), others might not be as lucky as you're.

Those people serving you at your favorite rest.(waiters., janitors, etc.) are probably there because they're unnable to do something else for the time being, and need the cash.

I would agree that most people that work in McDonalds severing food would not pick that as their number one career choice. But I would have to ask, what are they doing to change their own future? You mentioned that some might try and start their own business and it might go bankrupt. Well, it might succeed too! When you said that they might not be as lucky as you, you mean to tell me that you think people just get rich mostly out of luck and not hard work?

I wanted to go back to school the coming Fall but I didn't have enough cash to go. So what did I do? Did I sit around and mop? No, got a job at McDonald's, Ponderosa Steak House, and Mainscape Landscaping. I put in INSANE hours (96+ hours cat napped in car). Guess what, I got enough to go back to school. The next Summer I did not like doing all the work for Mainscape Landscaping and only getting a fraction of they money they got for the job, so I started my own landscaping business. I did well, but it ended up being a bit too lonely (only myself and 1 other worker) so I became an optician.

McDonald's to waiter to landscaper to student to small business owner to optician. I was no longer working at McDonald's because I chose NOT to keep working there. I needed the cash so got any job I could get, then worked my way up. zidane1strife don't you think others could do this too if they wished?

I said, etc... If you have ADD, low IQ, problems socializing, or really bad teachers, parents. etc... or your view was skewed cause you were young and immature, or accidentally had a baby(boyfriend pressure, etc.) a little to early... etc... You're in trouble... If you're hit with a bullet /depression/bump in the head / go into a coma/ etc you're likely to have probs.

Lets break this down:

ADD: BAH, most people that have ADD are just hyperactive. I know I am very hyperactive and I get very (and I mean VERY) frustrated filling in the circles for the dumm SAT. I have the attention span of a gnat. I bounce off the walls. I have never taken redlin, and never plan too. Some people DO have ADD and it is a very real problem, but how many people have ADD bad enough that stop them from working? I would guess not that many really.

low IQ: I know many people that have a lower IQ than me that are much more successful in worldly ways than I am. Drive, determination, and discipline are more important that raw IQ. I am testament to that.

problems socializing: Who is responsible for this? The person that has the problem not anyone else.

really bad teachers: That does make things harder but that doesn't mean you are doomed for life. Pick yourself up and teach yourself.

parents: Again, this makes things harder but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for yourself. If you wish to blame your failures on someone else, so be it but at the end of the day it is your life and your lose.

or your view was skewed cause you were young and immature: You were young and immature so it is your responsibility not anyone else's. Good news is, when you really screw up, that is some of the BEST times to learn. You have now just gained what many people call experience. =)

accidentally had a baby(boyfriend pressure, etc.) a little to early: I don't really subscribe to accidental babies. Sex is fun and makes babies. You can do your best to only have the fun part, but you can still have a baby. it is no ones fault but yours. If you did not stand up for yourself and let your boyfriend pressure you, then you made a mistake. You had a baby, things will be harder. You have no one to blame but yourself. Good news, you CAN still make a better life for yourself even though your past actions will make it a bit harder.

Once there were nobles, royalty, etc... Some were able to take advantage of the societal system of the time and passed it on, now it's money... I have it, I pay for my child's education, and I've got the free time to raise'em

I am glad to hear that you have time to raise your children. Fatherhood will be one of the most important things I do in my entire life. I choose not to make $100,000 or more because I feel it would require for sacrifices to my family life that I am unwilling to make (this is a personal choice, no disrespect to those that choose to work harder than me in business).

(so they're not raised by complete strangers, cause I require 3jobs to be able to sustain my fam.)...

Maybe if you need 3 jobs to support your family and children, you should not have had them yet. I am 32 and I do not have children yet although I want to. I want to do the best for my family, so I would like myself or my wife to stay home with them (ends up it will be my Honey). We are not yet were we can live off of one income and maintain the lifestyle we want too so we are putting children off for a few years while we work on paying credit cards (our past mistakes).

Many will be stuck doing the same menial/repetitive/pointless tasks for the rest of their lives, and end up without their indepence, confined to a small pathetic room in the middle of nowhere.

It sounds like you feel that many people live hopeless lives with no chance of making a better life for themselves. If you really and truly believe this, that there is no hope, then I see as a major cause of the difference in our beliefs. Do you really think that no matter what some people do, no matter how hard they try that they will never be able to make a better life for themselves? That would be a very tragic belief to have.

As you can probably tell, I do not believe that at all. I think that some people have made very poor choices in the past that will make things very difficult for them down the road, but anyone can make a better life if they work hard enough and have enough determination. I did it, I might like to think that I am a bit special, but not THAT much different than most people. If I can do it, then so can anyone.

EQUAL OPORTUNITY... does the guy who inherit 20Billion, and has two parents two care for him, and has the best of the best in education(whose parent's likely have friends in the best institutions like harvard, MIT, etc).... have the same opportunity as the son of a single mother of 2, who has three jobs, and leaves them in day-care(etc).... NO...

No they do not have equal opportunity, but I will tell you this. People HAVE made it to the top that had a single mother of 2, who had three jobs, and leaves them in day-care. So if ONE person can do it, then ALL can if they try hard enough.

Do I as a business man have the ability to enter the s/w o/s business and hope to have any decent success? NO...

No, that would be foolhardy. Could you make a small mps player and sell it to AOL for millions? Yup, that was WinAmp I do believe.

PS I didn't say it's impossible to go down/up a class, I said it's rather difficult for that 35+yr old mother, with no decent ed. and sev. kids, working at a cafeteria to end up the CEO of multi-national corp....

Maybe the 35+ year old mother needs to take responsibility for her actions? Maybe she should not have had some many kids, unless it was rape, she needs to realize that she chose to have each and every one of those children. Maybe she should not have wasted 35 years of her life before she decided she wanted to become a CEO. Maybe she should have worked harder and getting an education. Maybe she has made poor choices in life and as a result, she has made things hard for her.

It sounds like you live in a dark sad world where the is little to no hope of the average Joe making a better life for oneself. If I thought that it was truly that hopeless, I think I would have much different beliefs, but then again if I can make something of myself, then anyone can if they really try.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

pax,

Can you guys (joe, demo ect...) enlighten us as to what could be cut from gov to any significant degree and we could still have a stable nation in the US?

One area of concern would be to overhall the welfare system. I don't know if it would be any cheeper in the short run to do it right, but getting a job in the public sector needs to be better than gettin welfare.

One of my old friends got pregnant. She would only accept part time work at her job because if she worked too many hours she would loose her benifits. We need to remove those types of incentives if we are to help people become productive part of society again.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[pax]

After all the cutbacks thats already been put in place I really dont see that many savings in welfare... Id need to see some serious numbers. I mean dont most states cut off welfare after 2 years now?

 

[DemoCoder]

Even Imperial Rome went from 3-1 disprity to a max of about 10-12 to one according to some studies.

Citation? So the emperor and elite were only 3 times more wealthy than Roman slaves?

Can you guys (joe, demo ect...) enlighten us as to what could be cut from gov to any significant degree and we could still have a stable nation in the US? Without the need for a police state that is...?

Well, if the US would return an isolationist libertarian state, we could probably cut the military budget by half or more. Upgrade the military to a mobile deterrence force only. This obviously would take a long time, but if the US only had the maintain the military defense capability, of say, Japan or Germany, there's about minus $200-$300 billion.


Also, get rid of social security and replace it with a mandatory savings account audited by govt. Let those who did not work their life or save at all go on welfare.

Try to lower the debt service payments on the US debt.

Eliminate farm subidies and corporate welfare.

The reason why a much larger disparity between you and Bill Gates can be tolerated is because you are living a life of luxury compared to a Roman peasant, even compared to the emperor. You're not starving, you probably have a car, a TV, a phone, VCR, modern plumbing, clean water, and a whole lot of other stuff. The middle class of western nations are truly spoiled brats when you think of it. You'll probably live to 100-120 given the biotechnology available in the next 10-20 years, yet you continue to have such a pessimistic and envious view of the world.

Most of the world lives in absolute squalor, and Western voters are busy whining about CEO salaries while they drive their soccer mom SUVs to school in a virtual garden of eden compared to the third world.

Fact is, after a certain amount of income, there's not much more a wealthy person can do to "live better" than a regular person. Buy a marginally better car, a bigger house (but there's a limit), travel more. Perhaps middle class people might envy being able to not work, but wealthy people generally LIKE working.

I'm passionate about what I do, to the extent that a vacation annoys me after awhile.

 

[DemoCoder]

I'd quibble with your definitions alittle Dave. Even a flat tax percentage is progressive.

I consume the same government services a "poor" person does: education, garbage collection, police, courts, national defense, etc. I do not consume more than they do, so why am I forced to pay a higher price for equivalent service?

The very fact that I am paying more absolute cash for say, local schools, or for, police, is progressive. If schools or police where private entities, I would very well be paying exactly the same absolute price as someone else.

10% of my salary is already way more than 10% of someone elses, but I consume no more government than they do. So a flat tax rate is merely progressive, a "progressive tax rate" is actually, super-progressive.


However, the principal behind progressive tax is to cause "equal pain", not to charge rational prices. Since $1 means alot less to me, than to someone much poorer, having to pay $1 isn't a "sacrifice", therefore, they say, it is not fair that I do not experience the pain/burden/inconvenience of having big chunks of my income taken.

Super-progressive tax rates go further. Since the marginal utility of a dollar goes way down as you have more of them, merely progressive rates aren't "painful" enough. 30% of $1billion stills leaves $666 million. I should be left only with $700,000-$1 million according to "maximize wage" socialists.

 

[pax]

1-3 ratio was pre empire tribal life of Latins. Evolved to 10-12 after Rome became expansionist and later imperial. Taken from BBC docu hosted by Terry Jones of Python fame who quoted studies. The emperor was of course a whole hell of a lot richer than that but I think the ratio were along the line of top 1% vs middle class...

Been digging for that but havent found it online yet. Was on disc civ only 2 months ago...

Oh for sure im not concerned by my 'lack' of income. Im indeed concerned about the squalor outside our guilded national cages tho...


Now def youd save tons on farm and corporate subsidies and the military. Chances of that happening? No point going there hhe... Doubt you could nego lower bond rates tho... too many out there already and the rates are already pretty low...

For sure today few build castles and live their weath. Gates has a nice multi million dollar tech house but I dont think he actually enjoys it that much... once things get too big its pointless really. Its not the idea of spending or living that wealth I think is a problem but the shere over accumulation\concentration...

 

[antlers]

Some of you are arguing that the rich deserve what they have, since what they do/have done is more valuable--it was more valuable to the market, and thus must be more valuable to society.

However, this assumes that the market values things 'correctly'. Perhaps it would if the market were really 'free', but it is tightly controlled by (surprise, surprise) the very people it benefits! In other words, the rich (as a class) control how the market values various kinds of labor, and therefore the market rewards the things that the rich do.

This market control is enforced through the violent, coercive power of the state--acting in defense of "property rights" which are freedoms only for those who have property. And the people who benefit most from the system--those who rely on the coercive power of the state to force people to clean their toilets or make their shoes, or do other work they would never dream of doing, at wages kept low so the wealthy's buying power remains high--the same people complain that they have to give too large a portion of their share of the spoils to keep the system going!

People have this naive belief that the market is always 'right'. While markets are necessary for economic efficiency, so are non-market restrictions on private economic power. If the seesaw tilts too far in one direction or the other, you get corruption, abuse of power and inefficiencies (Soviet Union, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom). To work the way they should (which is to provide some semblance of justice to the poor while giving some leeway to the people who can be economic dynamos) the non-market restrictions have to be agreed on democratically in a forum where it is one person, one vote, rather than one share, one vote.

It is the great success of Western liberal democracies that they have found such a compromise formula. I think it is astonishing that the people who are benefitting most from the current system are demanding to tear it down by going to extremes of economic injustice that will invite social instability.

 

[pax]

Damn I used to write those kind of posts antlers... well actually I still do but to a differnt audience now ... and I love the motto the greeks had "the middle way is best". Well said, its definitely law and order and the stability of our society which have been one of the keys to current prosperity. I hate the idea of overhauling what seems to work well... Democratic politics with capitalist economy. Fiddling a bit with this maybe but any serious removal of our already modest democratic function cant be a good thing.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Some of you are arguing that the rich deserve what they have, since what they do/have done is more valuable--it was more valuable to the market, and thus must be more valuable to society.

As a general rule of thumb...yes. If they have what they have legally, then they deserve to have it.

However, this assumes that the market values things 'correctly'. Perhaps it would if the market were really 'free', but it is tightly controlled by (surprise, surprise) the very people it benefits! In other words, the rich (as a class) control how the market values various kinds of labor, and therefore the market rewards the things that the rich do.

Oddly, I thought the people buying the goods and services had control over how the market vlaued the goods and services.

People have this naive belief that the market is always 'right'.

I don't think that way. I personally have a belief that a competitive market is generally always right.

This is why I'm a more aptly labeled a conservative, than a libertarian. I have no problems in general with anti-trust laws, and certainly not the concept of anti-trust laws.

 

[Silent_One]

zidane1strife wrote:

does the guy who inherit 20Billion, and has two parents two care for him, and has the best of the best in education(whose parent's likely have friends in the best institutions like harvard, MIT, etc).... have the same opportunity as the son of a single mother of 2, who has three jobs, and leaves them in day-care(etc).... NO...

Who's going to inherit $20 Billion?

I said if you have twelve billion $$$, and are out of work for whatever reason you likely ain't as worried as if you were broke/poor/ with no ed. and lots of debts.

If I had $12 Billion and am out of work?????

That is logical, if I had 40B$$$ in the bank do you think I'd be worried for being unemp/jobless...

If I had $40 Billion???

If someone works all their life and amasses a fair amount of wealth the state ought not to have a hand in how it is disbursed. They should be able to pass it along to their children. The state has no right to my father or mothers wealth (not that they have any.) or for that matter what I might pass on to my family.

What if your mother own's half of a particular market and your father own's the other half... you now own it all... that can't possibly be legal can it?

How about if I owned half the land in a state... the gov. and the people might have probs. depending on my mood...

If I owned half a State??? (which state BTW?)....

Well I certainly don't mean EXTREME, but I think slightly more taxes(particularly for inheritance.) would be good.

Good thing you don't use EXTREME examples.

Look say your parents worked all their life building up a small business, that employed 6 to 8 people, and that was assessed at a value of $1.5 million, and upon their passing, you inherited that business, along with their modest house valued at, say, $250,000. The State and Federal inheitance tax would be, less the current $800,000 exempt amount, what 50%? tax, or $425,000 on the remaining $950,000. Where are you, or the "35+yr old mother, with no decent ed. and sev. kids, working at a cafeteria to end up the CEO of multi-national corp" going to come up with the money to pay for the taxes??? Your going to have to sell the business (if you can find a buyer for a decent price) and put those 6-8 people out of work. If your lucky you'll end up with a decent house and some money to pay the yearly property taxes with. You think this is fair? Your parents busted their ass all their lives and the Government takes such a large bite that small business are shut down, or closed, people lose their jobs, and you think inheritence taxes should go up??? So that 35+yr old mom woun't become a Billionaire!!??

Thank god the inheritance tax is going the way of the Dodo. The tax will be eliminated by 2010(?). Lets hope that it becomes permanent and is not reinstated after 2010.

 

[Dr. Ffreeze]

pax,

After all the cutbacks thats already been put in place I really dont see that many savings in welfare... Id need to see some serious numbers. I mean dont most states cut off welfare after 2 years now?

I see that people that live off of welfare most of their life as very expensive and wasteful. I do not see that welfare is working. I do not see welfare helping people in their time of need and then building them up to become productive successful members of society.

Dr. Ffreeze

 

[pax]

But reforms I had read a few years back in the states had already clawed back welfare to max 2 years of coerage (unless you were handicapped or some such)... I was asking about that. In Canada welfare payments are so low as to be ridiculous. Its 472$ a month for single guy of my age. The only ones who can do well with it are single women with kids...